Skip to main content

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: naturalfractal Date: Sep 11, 2013 2:51pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Neil Young (like Jer) speaks up for environmental justice yesterday!

I am I'm glad scientists have been carefully and faithfully studying the earth's dynamics for quite some time to gather all sorts of interesting information and new data. Their work is very important. I feel your out-of-context one-off blurb of marginal accuracy is a dishonest attempt to skew science to fit your worldview and, frankly, does not negate that fact that carbon dioxide has proven heat trapping properties and human beings have released more than 300 billion tons of it into the atmosphere since 1850. Last year we broke the global carbon emissions record high, again.

CO2, released into the atmosphere, is, and always will be, a greenhouse gas.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Monte B Cowboy Date: Sep 15, 2013 12:23pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Neil Young (like Jer) speaks up for environmental justice yesterday!

> CO2, released into the atmosphere, is, and always will be, a greenhouse gas...

The greenhouse effect is a process by which thermal radiation from a planetary surface is absorbed by atmospheric greenhouse gases, and is re-radiated in all directions. Since part of this re-radiation is back towards the surface and the lower atmosphere, it results in an elevation of the average surface temperature above what it would be in the absence of the gases.

Today, the greenhouse effect is "on steroids" due to our increased CO2 emissions. The earth's climate is four percent wetter than it was just forty years ago. That's a huge and unsustainable increase!

Sure, we had many fewer hurricanes in the U.S. this year. So, where did all that atmospheric moisture go? Billions of gallons of it just wasted Colorado! Monsoons came early and hit hard in India, etc, etc, etc...

http://archive.org/details/colorado_flooding_13-sept-2013

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Mandojammer Date: Sep 16, 2013 8:48am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Neil Young (like Jer) speaks up for environmental justice yesterday!

This predicament is going to solve itself.........

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Monte B Cowboy Date: Sep 16, 2013 9:16am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Neil Young (like Jer) speaks up for environmental justice yesterday!

According to Neil's world view and his talking points, Jerry's world view and his talking points, and my world view and my talking points, we should be taking direct action now and doing many things now to avoid the enormity of this predicament.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: bluedevil Date: Sep 16, 2013 9:33am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Neil Young (like Jer) speaks up for environmental justice yesterday!

Lou Reed weighed in awhile back....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rn6G_EWFMds

They say things are done for the majority
Dont believe half of what you see and none of what you hear
Its like what my painter friend donald said to me
Stick a fork in their ass and turn them over, they're done

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Mandojammer Date: Sep 16, 2013 9:54am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Neil Young (like Jer) speaks up for environmental justice yesterday!

Problems have solutions, while predicaments only have outcomes.

What would you have us do that would have any real impact on the anthropogenic portion of climate change?

"Attention all third world and emerging countries, your attention please. Stop all generation of carbon based energy. Remain in the stone age.

Sincerely,

The First World.

PS - We really don't give a shit, but if we tell people we like polar bears they will keep voting for us."

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Monte B Cowboy Date: Sep 16, 2013 10:18am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Neil Young (like Jer) speaks up for environmental justice yesterday!

So, you're refusing to do anything? Nobody, generally speaking, is saying, "Stop all petrol activity immediately, everywhere, forever."

You could start by not giving a shit so extremely. Not giving a shit is very unconvincing and unbecoming.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Mandojammer Date: Sep 16, 2013 10:34am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Neil Young (like Jer) speaks up for environmental justice yesterday!

First you could go back and note the placement of the quotation marks and not attribute something to me that I dind't say.

Then you could answer the original question instead of posing another question. You could frame your answer with an understanding that the majority of anthropogenic carbon emissions are coming from the emerging world. At least according to one side of the debate. But that's never stopped the home team from imposing its will has it?

I remain unconvinced that there is anything we can do that will have a measurable impact. Especially now that the dire straits previous model runs predicted are not coming to pass. In fact, the most recent HADCRUT data supports an apparent disconnect between surface temperature increases and carbon ppm increases.

Now, the emerging discussion of ocean heating may have legs, but the data is woefully scarce and the derivative climate modelling is in its infancy.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Monte B Cowboy Date: Sep 16, 2013 11:09am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Neil Young (like Jer) speaks up for environmental justice yesterday!

Our predicament is very clear - direct action is required
co2_history.jpg

The basic physical property here is that warm air holds more water vapor than cold air. Today our Earth's atmosphere is about four percent wetter than it was 40 years ago. That's an enormous change in a basic physical parameter. It loads the dice in two distinct ways:

• Our Planet will experience increased drought and fires - as you’re getting increased evaporation.

• There will be deluge, downpours, and flooding.
Common sense says the 'sustainability factor' for seven billion people and all living creatures on our planet requires a secure climate for a secure existence. In the least, there are many things we could be doing to make this predicament "less worse". (that last sentence of mine does suck...)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Mandojammer Date: Sep 16, 2013 11:50am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Neil Young (like Jer) speaks up for environmental justice yesterday!

So why hasn't surface temperature increased along with CO2 ppm as predicted by all the cool kids with the cool models (bought and paid for by Beltway special interest groups)?

Those same models which people were using to justify an even more intrusive government presence (read "Carbon Tax")predicted a 3.1 degree C temp increase. The most recent HADCRUT data shows a 0.8 degree increase and the slope of the curve is declining.

Prove to me that CO2 is as bad as you say it is. Show me peer reviewed data that proves the temperature increases (that we didn't see) are 100% attributable to increased CO2 ppm.

Then prove to me the anthropogenic contribution to the CO2 increase.

Then prove to me that we have any right to tell emerging countries what to do (other than harvesting political capital and peddling influence).

Until then, I'll keep doing what I'm doing at my own level in the hope that it matters a whit.

But as we have seen over the past 6+ years, "Hope" has turned out to be a losing strategy.....


Note the change in slope of the temp anomaly curves....

HadCRUT4.png

I hate it when data doesn't support emotions and beliefs....

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/monitoring/climate/surface-temperature

I'm just being an ass now, so I'll stop.

This post was modified by Mandojammer on 2013-09-16 18:50:30

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: billydlions Date: Sep 16, 2013 4:01pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Neil Young (like Jer) speaks up for environmental justice yesterday!

Perhaps Monte needs to call Neil Yuck or Jerry to ask how to respond to the points that you make. But I have to ask, who gives a shit what a celebrity thinks in the first place! Especially one who most likely has few brain cells remaining. Why does their opinion matter more than a scientist, for example Roy Spencer, who has done an amazing job analyzing the global warming, I mean climate change debate.

http://www.drroyspencer.com

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Monte B Cowboy Date: Sep 17, 2013 7:14am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Neil Young (like Jer) speaks up for environmental justice yesterday!

You and Mando conveniently avoid discussing the other vital point, besides greenhouse gas pollution. What about the pollution and hazardous waste streams coming from the fossil fuel industry? I believe this is going to maim and / or kill us all eventually, with or without the deluge caused by global warming, unless we change our behavior.

Neil Young said, "The fact is, Fort McMurray looks like Hiroshima. Fort McMurray is a wasteland. The Indians up there and the native peoples are dying. The fuels all over — the fumes everywhere — you can smell it when you get to town. The closest place to Fort McMurray that is doing the tar sands work is 25 to 30 miles out of town and you can taste it when you get to Fort McMurray. People are sick. People are dying of cancer because of this. All the First Nations people up there are threatened by this. Their food supply is wasted. Their treaties are no good. They have the right to live on the land, like they always did, but there’s no land left that they can live on. All the animals are dying."

Here are a few of the many, many examples we have of the fossil fuel industry's haz-waste accidents, disasters, and nightmares:
- the 2013 Exxon Pipeline Rupture in Arkansas

- the 2010 BP oil spilll in the Gulf of Mexico

- the 2008 Kingston Fossil Plant coal ash spill in Tennessee
Today in Colorado, the petrol industry is fracking thousands and thousands of gas and oil wells. In Weld County alone there are over 20,000 fracked wells, many storage tanks, pipelines, etc. This 4-minute video clip shows flooded-out fracking sites in Weld County, Colorado two days ago. I have not seen or heard any reports in the media about this... not one word... Why not?

New Report shows the Top 50 polluters emit 75% of greenhouse gases
  • Fifty of the world's 500 largest publicly traded companies are responsible for nearly three quarters of the group’s greenhouse gas emissions, according to a new report by a group that compiles data on climate change.
  • The big emitters are not doing enough to reduce emissions, and the top 50 have increased their emissions since 2009, the report says.
  • U.S. companies in the top 50 include oil majors such as Exxon (XOM), Chevron (CVX) and ConocoPhillips (COP), and other giants such as Wal-Mart (WMT), FedEx (FDX), Dow Chemical (DOW), AT&T (T) and Duke Energy (DUK).
  • Exxon, Shell (RDS.A, RDS.B), Sasol (SSL), BP and Petrobras (PBR) are the five biggest emitters in the energy sector.


This post was modified by Monte B Cowboy on 2013-09-17 14:14:00

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Mandojammer Date: Sep 17, 2013 7:28am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Neil Young (like Jer) speaks up for environmental justice yesterday!

We're not avoiding anything. You brought up CO2 and I said so what? I presented objective information to counter your implied claim that CO2 was related to a global temperature increase.

then you changed the subject and cite Neil fucking Young as some type of material expert witness.

"Fort McMurray looks like Hiroshima" Really Neil? Fort McMurray looks like it got hit with a 75 psi mach stem and overpressure wave? Fort McMurray looks like a 4 square mile area with 10 cal/cm2 heat deposition into EVERYTHING. Fort McMurray has 90,000 dead people laying around?

Shut the fuck up Neil.

Monte, dude, I love you like a brother, but stick to one topic.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Monte B Cowboy Date: Sep 17, 2013 7:54am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Neil Young (like Jer) speaks up for environmental justice yesterday!

I tried to get this poop "on the record" because the News Media today is an utter failure. I felt like I was obligated to put this together since I made a good living working in The (news) Media for thirty years. I aplogize to all of you for failing so miserably. I don't even have a wife or any kids to worry about. I'll take my simple values, for a simple life, to my grave. Out.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: AltheaRose Date: Sep 17, 2013 8:08am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Neil Young (like Jer) speaks up for environmental justice yesterday!

Well, Mando, weighing in from the third world here, it's true that the emissions, pollution, etc are horrible ... but the fact is that Western environmental consciousness absolutely does make an impact. Slowly, and on too few people, and it can look like a finger in the dyke. But unless the West keeps pressing in all of those ways that are easy to dismiss as too-little-too-late and holier-than-thou, things would be unbelievably worse.

The West has the money, and money talks, and when the big INGOs and aid donor countries come in and throw their weight (however imperfectly and hypocritically) behind "clean green fill-in-the-blank" campaigns, it may not stop the emissions and make everything hunky dory, but it's such a crucial counterweight to the other form of "money talks," which is the sheer greed of third world businesses, the corrupt laziness of the politicians, and the shrugging fatalism of ordinary people.

Nobody's going to "remain in the stone age." But unless there's a lot of pressure and voices from the West and educated local folks offering a counter perspective on modernity -- in other words, saying "modernity doesn't mean belching smoke and plastic, it means bicycling and green space and healthy lungs," which we all know is true if we've lived in the States where people benefit from that awareness every second of the day -- then the notion that "modernity" someone equates inevitably with concrete and pollution will win. And people and the planet will lose.

OK, end of rant ...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Mandojammer Date: Sep 17, 2013 10:17am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Neil Young (like Jer) speaks up for environmental justice yesterday!

AR -

Two points which I fear have been lost.....

My original debate was whether or not the increase in CO2 ppm had any feedback function into global temperature increases. Just about all of the IPCC and GISS models concluded that once we exceeded 350 ppm CO2, we would see an accompanying temperature rise of around 3.1 degrees C. For the same time period predicted by the models, the observed temp increase was about .8 degrees C. My argument here is that we aren't seeing the temp increases predicted by the models as a function of CO2.

The second part to that discussion was the the question of the actual impact of the overal CO2 rise and what percentage of any rise could be causally attributed to anthropogenic carbon emission sources. We have lots of data stating that a large portion of the recent run up in CO2 has been post Industrial Revolution, but the data would indicate that the dire predictions of a temp increase have not come to pass. Yet - there are some theories out there about the oceans acting as huge heat sinks and absorbing some of the temp increase, but these are just getting going.

Perhaps I have a more jaded view of "Western environmental conciousness" than you do. Two sides of the same coin - it's just that green capitalism is slightly more palatable. I'm thinking degree(s) of separation here.

The Kyoto Accords are a feel good farce. Developed countries were allowed to swap emissions quotas with undeveloped countries to remain below binding target levels. Developed countries could finance emissions control initiatives in developing countries and allocate their actual emissions to another country to remain under thei respective binding limit. (Sounds like hedge fund trading on bundled mortgage backed securities the bank knew was going to fail to me.)

Undeveloped countries had no binding emissions targets and were actually allowed to grow relatively unchecked - "Under the Protocol, emissions of developing countries are allowed to grow in accordance with their development needs."

So what we have is "the West" and other developed countries coming up with creative accounting to essentially do nothing with their emissions, while passing them off to developing nations. In other words, developed countries will continue with business as usual, yet we will seek to impose our will on developing countries and mandate that they grow using as much green energy as possible. While casting a blind eye to the simple fact that is was only through unfettered consumption of readily available carbon based fuels that they were able to grow rapidly into "developed" nation status. Who are we (the developed world) to tell an emerging country how to do business?

I'm not trying to imply that modernity is "belching smoke and plastic". I just don't share your optimism that the West is as nobly motivated as you might.

Even so, I still can't get past the apparent fact that the impact of CO2 on global surface temps has been overstated. I tend to cast a suspicious eye towards anything that emerges as justification for further imposition of governmental control and regulatory oversight.

I don't mind your rants.....they're quite easy to engage on as I know the discussion is going to be at the very least mutually respectful (if somewhat heated - no pun intended.)

I should probably stop now too.....

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Sep 18, 2013 5:53am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Neil Young (like Jer) speaks up for environmental justice yesterday!

Just one giant quibble here, as I came late to the discussion...not sure who is on which side, but looks like it's Monte, AR and Mando vs the Forum? Or is it Mando vs Monte? How do you guys get those cool graphs to embed? (Not really! Just kidding...don't want know...).

As one that actually wades thru reams of data on heat impacts, I can speak to the DATA at hand, and leave aside the MODELS (I assume you guys have been reading all those lay reports on the "failure of the models...", right? If I got that wrong, NONE of this will make sense...maybe not even if I do, eh?).

For those that haven't been keeping up, the MODELS that Monte and Mando allude to have indeed failed us, but that's the nature of MODELS...they make all sorts of simplifying assumptions and get the future somewhat right, or less so in this case (this does depend on the MODELS you select, however, I have a number at my fingertips that worked quite well, some going back to 1975).

Anyhoo, that's why empiricists like me always prefer DATA. Of course, harder to figure out cause and effect, etc., etc.; but the "truth" of it all is as simple as we are getting warmer, and there is no doubt about it...CO2 is known to contribute to this, MODELS aside (of course, is it 10% or 80%? Hard to know w certainty), but as Mando notes, it's easier to wimp and say the uncertainty leaves me cold (har, har, we only wish, right?), so I decide to do nothing (actually, we all know that's not true for MJ; he's single handedly helped with a HUGE plastics issue, right? Truly...acting locally, as we all should...).

In any case, anyone that sez the failure of the MODELS to precisely predict the future the past decade are being silly if they conclude that this means CO2 isn't involved (sorry if this is you, MJ; I scanned and assumed you were more of the "can't solve it...therefore frustrated" participant) or that we aren't warming (that arctic ice blather is so silly it's not rec'ing ONE bit of my attn.!) is just...just...well, you know...

It's the same as "I drove my car off a cliff...hit a projecting rock half way down and my speed slowed to zero; feeling good about the rest of my trip now"

;)

If anyone cares, there is not a SINGLE climate scientist that in any way, shape, or form that doesn't think that 1) we are getting warmer; 2) CO2 is involved; and 3) it's gonna get worse before it gets better because a lot of development causes CO2, and by defn many 3rd locales are "under developed"....

Whoops...you never would have understood any of this...

This post was modified by William Tell on 2013-09-18 12:53:23

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Finster Baby Date: Sep 17, 2013 7:46am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Neil Young (like Jer) speaks up for environmental justice yesterday!

What is the solution and how much money do you want to fix it?

Reply to this post
Reply

Poster: 970jbob@gmail.com Date: Sep 16, 2013 3:36am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Neil Young (like Jer) speaks up for environmental justice yesterday!

And now it's global COOLING! Record return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 60% in a year

Almost a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than in 2012 BBC reported in 2007 global warming would leave Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013 Publication of UN climate change report suggesting global warming caused by humans pushed back to later this month

By DAVID ROSE

PUBLISHED: 18:37 EST, 7 September 2013 | UPDATED: 07:01 EST, 8 September 2013

A chilly Arctic summer has left nearly a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year – an increase of 60 per cent. The rebound from 2012’s record low comes six years after the BBC reported that global warming would leave the Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013. Instead, days before the annual autumn re-freeze is due to begin, an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe already stretches from the Canadian islands to Russia’s northern shores.

The Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific has remained blocked by pack-ice all year. More than 20 yachts that had planned to sail it have been left ice-bound and a cruise ship attempting the route was forced to turn back. Some eminent scientists now believe the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century – a process that would expose computer forecasts of imminent catastrophic warming as dangerously misleading. The disclosure comes 11 months after The Mail on Sunday triggered intense political and scientific debate by revealing that global warming has ‘paused’ since the beginning of 1997 – an event that the computer models used by climate experts failed to predict. In March, this newspaper further revealed that temperatures are about to drop below the level that the models forecast with ‘90 per cent certainty’. The pause – which has now been accepted as real by every major climate research centre –is important, because the models’ predictions of ever-increasing global temperatures have made many of the world’s economies divert billions of pounds into ‘green’ measures to counter climate change. Those predictions now appear gravely flawed.

THERE WON'T BE ANY ICE AT ALL! HOW THE BBC PREDICTED CHAOS IN 2007

Only six years ago, the BBC reported that the Arctic would be ice-free in summer by 2013, citing a scientist in the US who claimed this was a ‘conservative’ forecast. Perhaps it was their confidence that led more than 20 yachts to try to sail the Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific this summer. As of last week, all these vessels were stuck in the ice, some at the eastern end of the passage in Prince Regent Inlet, others further west at Cape Bathurst. Shipping experts said the only way these vessels were likely to be freed was by the icebreakers of the Canadian coastguard. According to the official Canadian government website, the Northwest Passage has remained ice-bound and impassable all summer. The BBC’s 2007 report quoted scientist Professor Wieslaw Maslowski, who based his views on super-computer models and the fact that ‘we use a high-resolution regional model for the Arctic Ocean and sea ice’. He was confident his results were ‘much more realistic’ than other projections, which ‘underestimate the amount of heat delivered to the sea ice’. Also quoted was Cambridge University expert Professor Peter Wadhams. He backed Professor Maslowski, saying his model was ‘more efficient’ than others because it ‘takes account of processes that happen internally in the ice’. He added: ‘This is not a cycle; not just a fluctuation. In the end, it will all just melt away quite suddenly.’

The continuing furore caused by The Mail on Sunday’s revelations – which will now be amplified by the return of the Arctic ice sheet – has forced the UN’s climate change body to hold a crisis meeting. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was due in October to start publishing its Fifth Assessment Report – a huge three-volume study issued every six or seven years. It will now hold a pre-summit in Stockholm later this month. Leaked documents show that governments which support and finance the IPCC are demanding more than 1,500 changes to the report’s ‘summary for policymakers’. They say its current draft does not properly explain the pause. At the heart of the row lie two questions: the extent to which temperatures will rise with carbon dioxide levels, as well as how much of the warming over the past 150 years – so far, just 0.8C – is down to human greenhouse gas emissions and how much is due to natural variability.

More... Ready for lift-off: Virgin's SS2 spacecraft reache